I see that many users are qualified as a 'true skeptic' or 'has no life' in their 'membership', which is because of the numbers of posts one made,So, by this logic, if Gorgeous with her nonsense reach like 10k posts she will be considered a true skeptic?

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

Spoiler:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.- Douglas Adams

While I am aware that you are being sarcastic, I would still like to point something out to you. Anyone can be skeptical about something. That simply means being doubtful about whether a particular point is correct. But the 'true skeptic', which has an independent meaning, is more than that. Those of us who aspire to being as smart as a true skeptic, do so by looking for evidence. A 'true skeptic' is a person who requires credible evidence to support his or her core beliefs. This evidence has to be empirical (based on reality) and objective. Biased evidence does not count. Nor does anything that has its origin between someone's ears. Religious revelation does not count. Nor does something get believed simply because some idiot asserts that it is true.

Understanding what evidence is credible is one of the skills of the 'true skeptic'. Using that evidence critically is critical or rational thinking. Those who cannot do this are the opposite of skeptical, and the correct word for that opposite is "gullible".

salomed wrote:It is fair to say that "true skeptic", when used by many of these "skeptics" is a euphemism.

They try to highjack words. "Debunking", for example. Bunk should be pointed out and removed, but they want it to mean "diversion, ridicule, and slander", primarily because when the bunk is gone there's nothing left for their position to rest on.

salomed wrote:It is fair to say that "true skeptic", when used by many of these "skeptics" is a euphemism.

They try to highjack words. "Debunking", for example. Bunk should be pointed out and removed, but they want it to mean "diversion, ridicule, and slander", primarily because when the bunk is gone there's nothing left for their position to rest on.

Skepticism is a epistemological position. It is not about science or woo, it is about doubt and certainty. These "true skeptics" simply do not doubt their own doubts. They just are not skeptics, cynics and gatekeepers, maybe.

salomed wrote:It is fair to say that "true skeptic", when used by many of these "skeptics" is a euphemism.

They try to highjack words. "Debunking", for example. Bunk should be pointed out and removed, but they want it to mean "diversion, ridicule, and slander", primarily because when the bunk is gone there's nothing left for their position to rest on.

Skepticism is a epistemological position. It is not about science or woo, it is about doubt and certainty. These "true skeptics" simply do not doubt their own doubts. They just are not skeptics, cynics and gatekeepers, maybe.

The problem is that when we ask the wooistas to defend their position they just spout BS. They want everybody to be unskeptical. I just say "{!#%@} you" and move on.

salomed wrote:It is fair to say that "true skeptic", when used by many of these "skeptics" is a euphemism.

They try to highjack words. "Debunking", for example. Bunk should be pointed out and removed, but they want it to mean "diversion, ridicule, and slander", primarily because when the bunk is gone there's nothing left for their position to rest on.

Skepticism is a epistemological position. It is not about science or woo, it is about doubt and certainty. These "true skeptics" simply do not doubt their own doubts. They just are not skeptics, cynics and gatekeepers, maybe.

The problem is that when we ask the wooistas to defend their position they just spout BS. They want everybody to be unskeptical. I just say "{!#%@} you" and move on.

But what really is the difference between the woosters (of which I am often one) and the scientists(ibid) when it comes to certainty? The idea that there is some fortress of science and inside that is certainty and outside of that is nonsense is, itself, nonsense.

salomed wrote:...But what really is the difference between the woosters (of which I am often one) and the scientists(ibid) when it comes to certainty? The idea that there is some fortress of science and inside that is certainty and outside of that is nonsense is, itself, nonsense.

salomed wrote:...But what really is the difference between the woosters (of which I am often one) and the scientists(ibid) when it comes to certainty? The idea that there is some fortress of science and inside that is certainty and outside of that is nonsense is, itself, nonsense.

As I have said before, one of the great virtues in science is honesty. That honesty requires scientists to declare doubt and uncertainty. In fact, a good scientist will not talk of anything being factually correct. Instead he or she will say an idea is a 'strong model of reality.'

In fact, mostly science understates certainty. For example, the idea of biological evolution is called the theory of evolution, in spite of the fact that it is as close to a certainty as any idea in this universe can be.

salomed wrote:But what really is the difference between the woosters (of which I am often one) and the scientists(ibid) when it comes to certainty?

The scientific method which you go out of your way, to avoid using.

salomed wrote:The idea that there is some fortress of science and inside that is certainty and outside of that is nonsense is, itself, nonsense.

No one ever claimed that. Under the scientific method, anyone can introduce any hypothesis they want to introduce. Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin or Werner Heisenberg didn't have to siege the fortress to get in, with their wacky ideas, did they?

I posted about a philosophical position that takes naturalism further by emphasizing how we talk about things; what is a useful explanation, or story, or not. While I like the concept myself I wanted to show it to others and see what they thought of it.I read critiques on it on other websites, but they seem to be similar to critiques on science and naturalism in general.Point is, I wanted to see it put under scrutiny.

salomed wrote: You know all about the fraud in science, the bias of the peer review system, compromised journals, corporate bias etc....

Science is an activity carried out by humans. As a result, there will always be the odd one who is dishonest. But compared to any other human endeavour, it is the most honest activity I know. If you actually read scientific papers, and I do, you will see how extraordinarily careful the writers are about not making unsupportable claims. That does not happen elsewhere.

salomed wrote: You know all about the fraud in science, the bias of the peer review system, compromised journals, corporate bias etc....

Science is an activity carried out by humans. As a result, there will always be the odd one who is dishonest. But compared to any other human endeavour, it is the most honest activity I know. If you actually read scientific papers, and I do, you will see how extraordinarily careful the writers are about not making unsupportable claims. That does not happen elsewhere.

Yep, facts can be established without human testimony (of dubious value at best).

salomed wrote: You know all about the fraud in science, the bias of the peer review system, compromised journals, corporate bias etc....

Science is an activity carried out by humans. As a result, there will always be the odd one who is dishonest. But compared to any other human endeavour, it is the most honest activity I know. If you actually read scientific papers, and I do, you will see how extraordinarily careful the writers are about not making unsupportable claims. That does not happen elsewhere.

I think the whole edifice is corrupt. It is corrupt from from the topdown (The corporations) and it lack's integrity from the bottom up (tenure, baby, tenure).

Of course this is not all scientists, institutions and journals, but I don't think it is a merely a few bad apples. It seem's pretty endemic. You must have heard of all of these issues.

salomed wrote:I think the whole edifice is corrupt. It is corrupt from from the topdown (The corporations) and it lack's integrity from the bottom up (tenure, baby, tenure).

That is an opinion generated by the distorted business of the news media. The slogan used by newspapers and TV news is :"If it bleeds, it leads." In other words, always emphasize anything bad, because it is more likely to attract readers and listeners. That which is good appears on the last page in small print, if at all.

THe other thing to remember is that journalists are innumerate. They do not understand statistics or numbers, and so report anecdotes instead. The vast majority of scientists are honest, and report their findings honestly, but innumerate journalists cannot understand what 'majority' means, and report the exception, since it comes as an inaccurate anecdote. Those who work for corporations, like Big Pharma, may not be as honest, but most maintain high standards. But the news media do not like to report anything good, so they will always present the opposite.